If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   The glaciers are shrinking. Everybody panic   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 26
    More: Ironic, glaciers  
•       •       •

2443 clicks; posted to Geek » on 15 Apr 2012 at 8:01 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



26 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-04-15 05:47:08 PM
Nicely done.
 
2012-04-15 06:43:34 PM
img51.imageshack.us

Yo, we outta here.

Word to yo mother.
 
2012-04-15 08:18:25 PM
Oh, this happens outside the business tab? I suppose I did see it multiple time in politics about who leads the polls.
 
2012-04-15 08:32:59 PM
Between this and politics, it should be obvious why so many people are cynical anytime someone tells them something is a "consensus" and it is time to panic.
 
2012-04-15 08:58:51 PM
Subby here. I apologize for the weak recycled headline. When you find contradictory posts on the front page of a major website you just have to point out the dialectic. Please propose your synthesis.
 
2012-04-15 09:08:01 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-15 09:08:39 PM

lousyskater: [i.imgur.com image 640x73]


Or it can re-size it, that works too.
 
2012-04-15 09:17:27 PM

Equilibrist: Subby here. I apologize for the weak recycled headline. When you find contradictory posts on the front page of a major website you just have to point out the dialectic. Please propose your synthesis.


One of the broad predictions of global warming is that glaciers are disappearing worldwide, and with them access to fresh water for millions of people, and untold numbers of habitats. However, as climate patterns change, the effects of a warmer world climate will not be distributed equally. While many areas will be hotter and drier, some will be wetter and or more temperate.

/Not that hard.
//One story is about a collection of many forests, the other is about a grove of trees.
 
2012-04-15 09:21:33 PM

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: [img51.imageshack.us image 300x358]

Yo, we outta here.

Word to yo mother.


Why is he leaving? Global warming is a problem, and I was under the impression that he'd solve it.
 
2012-04-15 09:23:13 PM

lousyskater: lousyskater: [i.imgur.com image 640x73]

Or it can re-size it, that works too.


Great. Global warming is now shrinking our embedded images, too.
 
2012-04-15 09:37:51 PM

Equilibrist: Subby here. I apologize for the weak recycled headline. When you find contradictory posts on the front page of a major website you just have to point out the dialectic. Please propose your synthesis.


Since we're doing double posts:

You know they're not actually contradictory, do you?

You might start by reading the subheadings of both those articles:

"3D altitude maps captured by satellites show glaciers in part of the greater Himalaya range are bucking the global trend of continued ice loss."

"A couple of glaciers shrinking more slowly than expected does not change the irrefutable fact that most are melting rapidly."
 
2012-04-15 09:38:38 PM

06Wahoo: Between this and politics, it should be obvious why so many people are cynical anytime someone tells them something is a "consensus" and it is time to panic.


Yeah, any time a bunch of scientists agree on something, they're probably lying.
 
2012-04-15 10:15:07 PM
lol subby doesn't know the significance/difference between oceanic glaciers and mtn range glaciers

/i'm bluffing, neither do i
//currently failing Geology
 
2012-04-15 10:22:38 PM

Tickle Mittens: One of the broad predictions of global warming is that glaciers are disappearing worldwide, and with them access to fresh water for millions of people


I'm not aware of any significant group of humans that require melting glaciers for a supply of fresh water.
 
2012-04-15 10:52:37 PM

SVenus: I'm not aware of any significant group of humans that require melting glaciers for a supply of fresh water.


"Require", perhaps not. "Have a significant dependence on", yes. (e.g., here, which discusses both glacial meltwater and snowmelt).
 
2012-04-15 11:07:15 PM

SVenus: Tickle Mittens: One of the broad predictions of global warming is that glaciers are disappearing worldwide, and with them access to fresh water for millions of people

I'm not aware of any significant group of humans that require melting glaciers for a supply of fresh water.


How about the people who depend on the Indus and Ganges rivers? You know, rivers that fill up with glacial melt water from that large mountain range in Central Asia.
 
2012-04-15 11:26:24 PM

Ambitwistor: 06Wahoo: Between this and politics, it should be obvious why so many people are cynical anytime someone tells them something is a "consensus" and it is time to panic.

Yeah, any time a bunch of scientists agree on something, they're probably lying.


Exactly, just yesterday I suddenly fell up and hit the ceiling pretty hard. So-called "gravity" is clearly just a conspiracy to transfer first world wealth to the third world, thereby enriching all the first world scientists.
 
2012-04-15 11:31:41 PM

Ambitwistor: SVenus: I'm not aware of any significant group of humans that require melting glaciers for a supply of fresh water.

"Require", perhaps not. "Have a significant dependence on", yes. (e.g., here, which discusses both glacial meltwater and snowmelt).


Yes, without the glaciers melting, some river valleys would have less water and would have to depend more on the yearly precipitation.
So, some locals must therefore be ROOTING for more melty glaciers. Got it.

As far as sustainability, requiring glacial meltwater for survival seems a bit... uh, unsustainable.
 
2012-04-15 11:49:15 PM

Baryogenesis: SVenus: Tickle Mittens: One of the broad predictions of global warming is that glaciers are disappearing worldwide, and with them access to fresh water for millions of people

I'm not aware of any significant group of humans that require melting glaciers for a supply of fresh water.

How about the people who depend on the Indus and Ganges rivers? You know, rivers that fill up with glacial melt water from that large mountain range in Central Asia.


BPP
 
2012-04-16 02:02:25 AM
static.desktopnexus.com
Sure, the stern of the ship is going down, but clearly the bow of the ship is actually going UP!

You can't explain that!

Titanic sinking is a myth.

/ Titanic denier
 
2012-04-16 05:10:58 AM

gwowen: [static.desktopnexus.com image 450x255]
Sure, the stern of the ship is going down, but clearly the bow of the ship is actually going UP!

You can't explain that!

Titanic sinking is a myth.

/ Titanic denier


I have some iceberg credits to sell you. Quick, before we all die! What do you mean we have more important things to do?
 
2012-04-16 07:27:54 AM

Equilibrist: Subby here. I apologize for the weak recycled headline. When you find contradictory posts on the front page of a major website you just have to point out the dialectic. Please propose your synthesis.


Derpity!
Gosh, you mean nature isn't bi-polar (like most farkers)?
"It's warming, it's cooling, it's man-made, it's not man-made!"
Derpity!
 
2012-04-16 08:22:20 AM

Equilibrist: Subby here. I apologize for the weak recycled headline. When you find contradictory posts on the front page of a major website you just have to point out the dialectic. Please propose your synthesis.


Yeah, you might try reading the entire articles and not just skimming the first paragraphs.
 
2012-04-16 08:26:21 AM

Andric: Equilibrist: Subby here. I apologize for the weak recycled headline. When you find contradictory posts on the front page of a major website you just have to point out the dialectic. Please propose your synthesis.

Yeah, you might try reading the entire articles and not just skimming the first paragraphs.


Pretty much this.
 
2012-04-16 09:05:52 AM

SVenus: Yes, without the glaciers melting, some river valleys would have less water and would have to depend more on the yearly precipitation. So, some locals must therefore be ROOTING for more melty glaciers. Got it.


Dude, I know you like to pretend to be an expert in all geosciences, but do some reading on hydrology before looking like a jackass. Glaciers (and snowpack) serve an important function as a "buffer" for the water supply (regulating flow so you have a dependable amount, not too much or too little). Furthermore, even ignoring this function, locals don't necessarily want more glacial meltwater: some may already have enough, and others may not be willing to trade more now for none later.

As far as sustainability, requiring glacial meltwater for survival seems a bit... uh, unsustainable.

Sure, if climate change is going to melt them all. That's why they don't want climate change to melt them all.
 
2012-04-16 10:52:45 AM

gwowen: You can't explain that!

Titanic sinking is a myth.

/ Titanic denier


Paradoxical undressing (new window).
You can't explain that!
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report